Saturday, December 26, 2009

[This post is part two in a series of posts about goals in games (MMOs in particular). Here is the first post.]

Games are like interpersonal relationships. And no, this is not to be taken in jest.

Communication is Essential but Requires Work

The only communication between you and a game occurs when you use a control device (keyboard and mouse, microphone, traditional console controller, etc) to give the game input. The game talks back to you through visuals and sound. Communicating with a game is expressing your will to the game through the use of controls. Just like in conversation with a stranger, your first steps towards communicating with the game may be misunderstood—you’ll do what you think tells the game what you want, but something else will happen in the game than what you expected. You try to stop Mario before a ledge but he slides off. This can get quite frustrating, but developing this communication between you and the game is the most basic step towards forming a strong relationship.

Like communications between people, communication between player and game leads to a certain unique kind of relationship. No two people will have the same relationship with a third person just as no two people will have the same experience playing a game. Each player enters each play session in a different emotional state, with different knowledge, and in a different real-life environment than any other play session. So within one person’s experience, they could have several significantly different play sessions that led to far-flung outcomes from frustration to jubilation.

We Interact So We Can Be Validated

We maintain relationships where others validate our personalities, thoughts, ideas, dreams, and desires. This process of validation makes us feel good about ourselves, so we seek it out. Usually people who engage in non-validating relationships are unhappy and, probably, seeking to end that relationship.

We enjoy playing games that seem to validate our will. If games fail to validate our will, we can’t communicate with them well enough for a working relationship to develop from which fun emerges.

Goals as Validation Schemes… or Not.

Some of our goals come from within and some from without. These goals are much different in how and why we pursue them.

Goals that come from within make us happy just through their accomplishment. If no one else ever saw that you completed that goal, you’d still be happy about it.

When we look for goals, we often look to those around us. What are they doing? If they’ve accomplished certain goals and they are happy, I must be able to achieve happiness through accomplishing those goals. Goals are propagated through a society in this way. Such goals don’t make us happy simply through their completion, though—we need someone to validate that the goal was worthwhile. When we complete the goal, we’ll go to our friends and tell them about it and pay close attention to their reactions. If they react positively, we feel good about our accomplishment—our friends have validated our efforts—but if they react negatively, we are much more likely to see our actions in pursuit of a goal as a waste of time.

Goals work similarly in games. The game becomes the society from which we draw the second kind of goal, though, and we rely on the game validating our actions in order for such goals to be worthwhile and, by extension, for a game that relies on such goals to be worth playing.

Extrinsic (or extrinsically sourced) goals originate from some other agent, like another player or a game.

Based on if they are communicated directly. Is the goal told to the player, or does the player form the goal automatically based on the environment?

Implicit goals are realized by the player without direct communication.

Explicit goals are literally told to the player.

A successful goal generation and completion process in a game proceeds like this:

You interact with the game to learn what you are capable of doing.

The game makes it clear what you should do (an extrinsic, explicit goal is generated), or you find something you want to do within the confines of the game (you generate an intrinsic, implicit goal).

You develop a plan to achieve your goal. This plan consists of implicit subgoals.

You complete the subgoals and, by so doing, complete the main goal.

For extrinsic goals, the game validates your will and presence in the game world through rewarding you and encouraging you forward. For intrinsic goals, you are happy and encouraged by completing your goal.

If part of this process is missing, the game will fail to hold your attention beyond its limited value as a curiosity.

Notice that gamers that need validation will rely on extrinsic goals and the pat on the back the game will give them when they succeed. The railroading that results doesn’t bother such a player, because games are merely validation engines for them. If the game doesn’t validate a player that needs validation, that player will stop playing. They will feel like the game is pointless to play.

For players who do not need validation from the game, they will not be happy with a game that does nothing but validate them—they may see such a game as lacking substance. These players want games that will allow them to exert their will on the game world within reasonable bounds. Railroading will be a turn-off.

[I removed an ill-conceived and incomplete section of this post that will be rewritten and included in a follow-up to this post. -Ev]

6 comments:

Interesting taxonomy. Although I'm not sure if there are many explicit intrinsic goals; it seems that if a goal is explicit it's probably extrinsic. Perhaps you could count if the game prompts people in a certain direction, even if it's not completely spelled out? Like the exploration deeds in games?

I appreciate the insight that explicit = themepark; however, I'm not sure that implicit = sandbox necessarily. I think that someone who can set their own goals can do so in a themepark, as long as there is enough flexibility. The question is how strictly regimented the themepark type game is.

As always, you can relate this to Bartle's types. Explicit = Achiever, Implicit = Explorer when talking about how players interact with the game. Those that involve people (Killers and Socializers) don't fit quite so neatly.

I'm going to write up a deeper analysis with examples of the different goal types and how my two goal classification schemes interact. Certain combinations like explicit + intrinsic may be possible but have not been implemented in a modern game.

The two classifications schemes definitely are not orthogonal to one another. Don't assume that because there are two ways of classifying goals that they should be independent (i.e. that you can have any combination of them feasibly).

I agree that intrinsic goals are limited to sandbox games. Games can basically be on rails, but allow the player to choose how many objectives of what difficulty they'd like to accomplish. More open-world-minded shooters do this and most themepark MMOs allow for it, as well.

The last section of the post was tacked-on. I didn't spend enough time on it and I probably shouldn't have included it.

Intrinsic goals are rough, though, because you can't always work your will on the world. Lot of people in EVE have a goal to be a yarrrrr pirate, but when they realize the world doesn't work to their wishes, they have to adapt or die.

You have to include some validation even in intrinsic mode. Otherwise you see what happens in EVE-a frustrated PvPer becomes a hisec miner carebear, choosing activities in game which give validation and are achievable. Or they leave entirely. People wont be able to see goals through opposition, especially if players are the main opposition.

Dblade brings up a good point, in that intrinsic goals have a lot of dependencies. You have to know the game to make intrinsic goals; one of the first intrinsic goals is often "learn how the game works" in order to make other goals. Relying on other players also can make it tough for an individual to make meaningful goals.

Intristic goals are also really a tuff nut to crack, because how do you differentiate between player wants and player goals? Like "ME be uber!" - is this a goal or just a player want? "Knowing how to play the game" is this a goal? I would say that goals that Evi talks about should be limited to make sense in-game. Of course this is discarding metagaming (as Evi used it so far) but I would have no problem with that. :]

On a different note, extrinstic implicit goals are implemented in a modern game: Sims. I strongly believe that all the implications that comes with the previous statement is, and will be really important for the gaming industry in the future.

Why we're here.

That's a Terrible Idea is a tag-team blog about designing better games. Though we focus on MMOs, we both are avid gamers that happily reach beyond the mainstream to find the games that suit us the best. We aim to offer insight and analysis on design decisions in existing games and constructive suggestions for the future.

Though we are both amateurs in game design, we spend many hours thinking about this stuff and want to create a place to cultivate useful discussion and analysis. We encourage experts and professionals as well as fellow amateurs to critique our work. Please help us improve the quality of the material here with your insight and knowledge.

We'd like to move past punditry towards a small, close community of gamers and game designers. Above all else, we want to facilitate the design of better games.